Hacker News Reader

Comment by xupybd | Hacker News Reader

I don't think banishment and freedom of association are linked in the way you are implying. I'm not free to associate with someone if they are removed from my professional circle for reasons that I don't agree with.

Criticizing speech is most definitely part of free speech, but it's the consequences of that speech that is worrying. In the east your professional opportunities dry up when people start accusing you of being an enemy of the state. In the west the same happens when you are declared an enemy of the minority.

Inclusion is fantastic, but not if it means excluding people for trivial examples of speech that people have to work hard to be offended by.

View on HN

I'm just going to keep posting this until I see some recognition of this, but none of the details here or in the "In Defense of Douglas Crockford"[1] post from yesterday are actually called out in the Nodevember statement[2]. Furthermore, the only detail corroborated by either of these posts, in what is ostensibly their source (a blog post from Kas Perch[3]), is the alleged slut shaming incident, which is a very minor note in a blog post otherwise criticizing his negative and dismissive attitude.

There's a mountain of tweets discussing this in replies to Nodevember's announcement, but nothing directly affirmed by Nodevember as the basis for their decision. Seems like a lot of outrage being stirred up over bullshit no one can substantiate.

[1]: http://atom-morgan.github.io/in-defense-of-douglas-crockford

[2]: http://nodevember.org/statement.html

[3]: https://medium.com/@nodebotanist/why-i-won-t-be-speaking-at-...

I agree with you here. I think a lot of the discussion is around the general topic raised by this situation. But good call that this is not the best example to get upset about.

Are you kidding? Of course it is. We have a guy who was booted out of a conference for completely opaque reasons, based on alleged complaints with absolutely no details by completely anonymous people. That doesn't bother you?

It does, but it sounds more like the organisers were just poorly equipped to deal with negative feedback. I don't think they wanted to do much more than avoid trouble. It was not handled well but I think that's about all there is to this one.

There's a pastebin of a Nodevember slack channel. http://pastebin.com/3mQc7DfG

Granted, it still isn't official, but even one of the conference's founders said to look to twitter for more context for the disinvitation of Crockford, so it isn't too off base.

Reading that I feel sorry for HermitPy, it would seem they're trying to please everyone and getting burned :(

William Golden and Jason Orendorff seem to be the only organizers in this discussion, and neither of them says anything more than "he was uninvited because other attendees and speakers did not feel comfortable attending/speaking with him there". There's some speculation and links to a video where he references genitalia, but none of that appears to be acknowledged by the organizers.

I don't see anything in this chat log that changes anything.

18th line, "there is more context around it on twitter but that’s the basic gist".

So, again, referencing the tweets & subjects preceding their announcement as context aren't unreasonable as Golden says there's more context on Twitter. Emily Rose, notably, unleashed a series of tweets at them until they capitulated. It's still not the official word you're seeking, but to ignore it seems willfully dismissive.

Moreover, in what manner would a direct affirmation or counterpoint by the Nodevember organizers be advantageous to them? I'm not trying to be conspiratorial about it; being quiet and vague is the far more diplomatic path. It's not in Nodevember's interests to be precise with the particularities of the disinvitation, nor are we, as outsiders, owed any sort of particular explaination. But neither were any details provided to Crockford for him to ameliorate. "It is a mystery to me too." per https://paulstraw.svbtle.com/crockford

I'm not going to touch what happens in the east, wherever that is, because that's irrelevant to the American concept of free speech.

But your basic point is you like free speech so long as it agrees with your pov? And the second someone is criticized in a way you find unacceptable (free speech!) it's wrong?

And people shouldn't be excluded (freedom of association also means the freedom not to associate) if they produce speech xupybd doesn't find offensive (trivial examples blah blah blah)?

I reiterate you and gp are deeply confused.

Even the American concept of free speech has it's limits. There are Libel laws for that very reason.

What does libel have to do with banishment, public criticism of Crockford, or freedom of association?

I'll help: Nothing.

ps -- you are exactly free to associate with someone if they are removed from your professional circle for reasons you don't agree with. Doing so is itself free speech. Now others may disagree with you, or even shun you for doing so. Still free speech. You're free to never go to Nodevember or any conferences the Nodevember principles are involved with. You're free to go to the next conference that invites Crockford just because he's there, and to brag about that on twitter and hn. You're even free to attempt to create your own conference featuring 8 hours of Crockford making bad biceps jokes. More free speech!

For what it's worth, I've seen no one claiming conferences doesn't have the right to exclude whomever they want.

> Now others may disagree with you, or even shun you for doing so.

I believe that is what is happening here. A portion of the tech community (of which I am a part) have begun to see this movement[1] as toxic, and are speaking out against it. The desired result is to either come to an equitable compromise, or eject the members of the movement from the community.

[1]: "this movement", meaning what others here have referred to as "SJW". I'm unaware of a term for it that is not implicitly biased, and while I oppose the movement as a whole I recognize that there are underlying issues that must be addressed and am loath to group everyone who would describe themselves as passionate about "social justice" into a single group. It's far more nuanced than that.

> you like free speech so long as it agrees with your pov? And the second someone is criticized in a way you find unacceptable (free speech!) it's wrong?

I can't tell if you're talking about the inclusivity crowd, or the people who are standing up against it.

The nodevember crew seems (I don't know all the facts and I don't really care) to be silly. But it's their right to so be.

I'm criticizing overgard, etc, for claiming that public criticism / not associating with Crockford is somehow anti-free speech on the basis that overgard etc disagree with it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com